Associated Dry Goods Corp.

18 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.

    388 U.S. 26 (1967)   Cited 321 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of discriminatory conduct as the Company failed to meet its burden of establishing legitimate motives for its conduct
  2. Labor Board v. Seven-Up Co.

    344 U.S. 344 (1953)   Cited 367 times
    Upholding the Board's application of a back pay remedy different from that previously imposed in similar cases, despite no announcement of new remedial rule in rulemaking proceeding
  3. Hendrix Manufacturing Company v. N.L.R.B

    321 F.2d 100 (5th Cir. 1963)   Cited 90 times
    Permitting the Board to consider the employer's clear expression of opposition to the union as background in order to determine motivation for management's conduct
  4. N.L.R.B. v. Security Guard Service, Inc.

    384 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1967)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing "the standard reluctance to apply [a statutory] exception broadly"
  5. N.L.R.B. v. Griggs Equipment, Inc.

    307 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1962)   Cited 52 times
    In Griggs, the issue was not even mentioned in the Board's Decision, but is noted in the decision of the court of appeals.
  6. Philip Carey Mfg., v. N.L.R.B

    331 F.2d 720 (6th Cir. 1964)   Cited 42 times

    Nos. 15289, 15330. March 31, 1964. J. Mack Swigert, Cincinnati, Ohio, Frank H. Stewart, Cincinnati, Ohio, on brief; E.J. Fasold, Cincinnati, Ohio, of counsel, for Philip Carey Mfg. Co. Lowell Goerlich, Washington, D.C., for International Union, etc. William J. Avrutis, Washington, D.C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Allison W. Brown, Jr., Attorney, N.L.R.B., Washington, D.C., on brief, for N.L.R.B. Before

  7. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Whitin Mach. Works

    204 F.2d 883 (1st Cir. 1953)   Cited 57 times
    In National Labor Relations Board v. Whitin Machine Works, 204 F.2d 883 (1st Cir.1953), for example, an assistant supervisor in his employer's accounting department was, upon a consideration of the nature of his work, determined not to be a supervisor for purposes of litigating his discharge from employment, and, therefore, he was entitled to the protections of the National Labor Relations Act. 204 F.2d at 886.
  8. Signal Oil and Gas Company v. N.L.R.B

    390 F.2d 338 (9th Cir. 1968)   Cited 25 times
    Finding that a non-union employee engaged in protected concerted activity
  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Mike O'Connor Chevrolet-Buick-GMC Co.

    512 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1975)   Cited 16 times

    No. 74-1645. Submitted February 13, 1975. Decided March 18, 1975. Charles A. Shaw, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Charles Kelso, Atlanta, Ga., for respondents. Appeal from the National Labor Relations Board. Before HEANEY, Circuit Judge, and WANGELIN and NANGLE, District Judges. H. KENNETH WANGELIN and JOHN F. NANGLE, District Judges, Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by designation. HEANEY, Circuit Judge. The National Labor Relations Board seeks enforcement

  10. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. S. Bleachery

    257 F.2d 235 (4th Cir. 1958)   Cited 33 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that the essential inquiry is whether the employer shares the power of management